The Deliberative Corporation is a technology-supported process for sustainable decision-making. It allows any organization or governing group to consult its population. The process builds trust and knowledge so that the implementers can find out what the people would think if they were thinking. It builds political capital and informed consent so leaders can make the right decision even when this involves significant complexity and difficult tradeoffs.

This process integrates a proven methodology for obtaining representative, informed opinions from a scientific sample with a patented technology that empowers an entire population to offer their views. We call this combination of techniques the Deliberative Corporation process.

This process can enhance decision-making for almost any group, including global multi-national companies -- geographically dispersed and multi-lingual -- as well as companies with more regionally concentrated workforces. It works even when there are deeply divided cultures, and challenges for which the group has not thought through the complexities before the process begins. Because considered judgments of populations are more likely to be sustained than top-of-the-head opinion, the process can create a deeper form of stakeholder buy-in. It allows resilient solutions to be identified, accepted and sustained over time. It can engage the collective intelligence of the workers or the clients of a corporation and provide decision makers with a data driven basis for choices that might otherwise be dominated by anecdotes and impressions.

Deliberation creates "political capital" and is the basis for making decisions that can be successfully implemented
with the support of those who are affected by them. When leaders can show that what stakeholders think
under good conditions, this can create legitimacy for a decision and political cover to do the right thing. This
can apply equally for leaders of companies, governments and unions.

Problem

There are many reasons why a corporation might need to consult a population -- whether its employees, its customers, its clients, or some other stakeholder group. It might need to draw on the collective intelligence of that population, or it might need to get their informed buy-in for implementing difficult choices. Or it might need to engage a community about effects of some of its policies. In all these cases, there are a number of impediments to getting feedback that is accurate and actionable.

* Self-selection is unrepresentative.

* Self-guided learning is biased.

* Crowd-sourcing and open forums can be overrun with highly mobilized special interests.

* Top of the head opinion is uninformed on most policy issues.

* Pressures for consensus lead to false consensus.

* Informal feedback channels are skewed.

* Even when leaders know what to do, forcing consensus backfires.

However, the Deliberative Corporation process outlined here surmounts all the familiar impediments to meaningful consultation. Most importantly it provides representative data about informed opinion while also giving all members of the relevant population an opportunity for substantive involvement. We believe this combination to be unique. It can provide informed buy-in from a population facilitating decisions that are perceived to be more legitimate and sustainable.

Solution

Issue

Solution

1. When people are surveyed on a specific topic with conventional polls, they’re willing to give an answer regardless of whether or not they know anything about the topic or actually have an opinion. Respondents rarely like to admit that they don't know. Hence the notorious survey by George Bishop and colleagues about the Public Affairs Act of 1975. 44% of Americans said they were either for it or against it even though this Act was fictional. Of course many polls represent actual opinions but they may be very much top of the head opinion, based on little more than a casual impression of sound bites or headlines. It is easy for managers to invoke survey results in making decisions, but they must be wary of non attitudes, phantom opinions or responses about complex subjects based on little thought or information.

1. Create a deliberative process that includes the ability for participants to learn about opposing viewpoints and adjust their opinions accordingly. Measure these changes and effects.

2. If managers use informal feedback channels to get information, they are typically receiving feedback disproportionate to the actual affected population, skewed by their social network and trusted relationships.

2. Use scientific random sampling to ensure that all points of view are represented

3. When individuals are left on their own to inform themselves about a topic about which they are being asked questions, they tend to learn information that supports what they already think (ref: Sunstein, Cass, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press 2007))

3. Create briefing materials with a diverse group of experts who disagree with one another to ensure that arguments for and against each alternative are sincerely expressed.

4. When traditional methods of deliberation are conducted, they’re often dominated by a sub-community based on rank, gender, education, or other factors, and not representative of the diversity of the organization

4. Ensure that in-person discussions are moderated so that all individuals in each small group can participate roughly equally and fairly together. In the European Union Deliberative Poll, a random sample of the entire EU community (all 27 countries) was convened in Brussels overcoming language differences (requiring simultaneous translation and small group dialogue in 22 languages).

5. Deliberative Polls alone, while highly effective, do not actually consult the entire population, just a random sample. Deliberative Polls actually provide informed and representative opinion and allow people to engage with competing points of view. But they only involve the microcosm that deliberates.

5. Offer the ability for the entire population to participate in the discussion.

6. In an online crowd-sourced forum, when everyone is invited to rate comments, the results are often manipulated by a highly mobilized, marginal group. An example: when the GOP sought to consult Americans about their suggestions for policies nationally, one of the top rated suggestions in America Speaking Out was that the United States should replace the military with the Monty Python Knights of the Holy Grail. Obviously the process was gamed by pranksters. A process that can be manipulated just with mobilized voting is not one that can be trusted.

6. Provide a mechanism during online discussion that prevents highly mobilized groups from skewing the discussion, for example by having the random sample from the Deliberative Poll rate the comments.

7.Open meetings, like public comment processes, are easily swamped by unrepresentative groups who bring up unreleated issues in a way that leads to a distorted picture of public opinion

7. Ensure that all comments are moderated and relevant to guarantee that the discussion take place within the broad parameters established at the beginning of the process.

8. Consensus seeking advisory groups produce distortions of polarization and false consensus due to social pressure to reach an agreement.

8. Gather opinions in confidential questionnaires to insulate the collection of data from the pressure for consensus.

9. Leaders may know of an approach that would be effective, but a lack of understanding among staff results in a lack of political capital to make these decisions. In such cases the organization is incapacitated pending the need for informed consent of the staff for a successful implementation of the solution.

9. Enable sufficient discussion from a variety of perspectives to that ensure major concerns are aired; insert expert information where there is confusion, and build a robust understanding of tradeoffs involved. Wide consultation on the substance can provide a collective sense of informed buy-in to the results. Analysis and modeling of change of opinion can provide a sense of which arguments are key to gaining acceptance of the results.

10. In some situations, such as post-acquisition across cultures, there is a deep cultural divide that must be bridged first by building understanding of the opposing group’s points of view.

10. For serious cultural divisions, Deliberative Polling has proven effective--even regarding the division between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and policies regarding the Roma in Eastern Europe. It creates mutual understanding even when the divide is deep or even intractable. Divisions within a corporation should be more manageable by contrast.

Updated August 19th 2011:

The Reframe It platform allows thousands of people to add comments on specific parts of a document. These comments can be rated, and they are displayed prioritized by either raw ratings or, more typically, by weighted ratings that allow those who have already attended the Deliberative Poll event to represent the population as a whole, minimizing the effects of mobilized groups.

The timeline for the overall process varies, depending on the availability of the Briefing Committee of experts and the desired length of time for the Online component. However, the process is typically three-six months.

1. Briefing Committee of diverse experts to create briefing materials which identify the arguments for and against each alternative approach.

2. Convening a random sample of the population in an in-person Deliberative Poll.

3. Analysis of in-person event, followed by revision of documents for Online Deliberation

4. Online Deliberation with the entire population invited to participate

5. Analysis of online event, and revision of documents for Second in-person Deliberative Poll by briefing committee

6. Convening of second random sample of population for Second Deliberative Poll in-person event

7. Analysis of Second Deliberative Poll

8. Final report of recommendations that achieve informed consent

The resources required for the process fall into the following category:

People
- Briefing Committee members to review and create Briefing documents throughout the process
- Continued participation by leadership to define scope and ensure realism in proposals suggested
- One moderator for every 15 people for the Deliberative Poll; each Deliberative Poll typically has 150-400 participants
- Deliberative Poll experts to answer questions
- Online moderators to ensure that questions are responded to by online experts
- Online experts to answer questions raised by the commenters
- Deliberative Corporation knowledgeable staff on technology, training, analysis, and project design
- Participants (typically compensated) 150-400 people
- People who can undertake the logistics of identifying the random sample of the population

The Deliberative Corporation process combines insights from multiple disciplines. One component of it, Deliberative Polling® in its modern form was invented by Professor James Fishkin, now director of Stanford's Center for Deliberative Democracy and on the Board of Directors of Reframe It. The process builds on the ancient democratic process that was used to govern the city-state of Athens more than two millenia ago. Another component of the Deliberative Corporation process is Reframe It's annotation platform. Bobby Fishkin founded Reframe It based on four years of research into what Tolstoy, George Eliot, CS Lewis, Herman Melville, ee cummings, Thomas Hardy and other authors scribbled, crossed out and underlined in their copies of Shakespeare. This rich history of hundreds of years of marginalia caused Bobby Fishkin to create the comany and technology of Reframe It to bring the positional meaning of conversation to life through digital annotation. These two traditions of histrocial marginalia and ancient Athenian democratic practice have been brought together in a 21st century approach to reinventing decision-making for corporations called the Deliberative Corporation process.

Practical Impact

Deliberative Polling has been used in many areas with a history of conflict, in order to make decisions about how processes can be changed to reach mutually shared values from both cultures. Because changes in process can affect lives in fundamental ways, and because the implications of the changes can be complex, it's important to get the informed consent of the groups that are involved in these changes.

Deliberative Polling has been used in Northern Ireland to have parents consider issues of educational integration. There was a substantial shift in favor of various forms of cooperation between Protestant and Catholic schools. Further, there was a large increase in each group’s perception that the other group was “trustworthy” and “open to reason.” This DP was used to give guidance to political decision makers on issues involving education.

In a corporate example, in a merger situation, systems for employee development might follow two different models to which employees have adapted. A Deliberate Poll is held to discuss several alternatives offered by those within the firm who have ideas about the issues (the Briefing Committee). Not only does the Deliberative Poll show "what the employees would think if they were thinking," it also teaches the employees about the tradeoffs, and the Poll itself expresses the concern and seriousness that executives have regarding sensitive issues.

After the Deliberative Poll, the Briefing Materials are put online so that the entire company has the opportunity to comment on the issues, not just the random sample that attended the Poll. The analysis of the Poll and the online documents allow everyone to share their ideas and insights that reflect their own interpretation about what would be culturally viable and successful in the post-merger environment. This dialogue produces revised and hopefully improved policy options. The final Deliberative Poll on the new options allows for a statistically representative sample to make an informed decision based on balanced arguments for and against each of the alternatives.

Updated August 19th

A Deliberative Corporation process can be used any time there are tradeoffs that a population needs to consider in order to provide informed consent for a resilient solutions.

Examples:

Products and Markets: Prioritizing among different product or go-to-market strategies

Updated August 23rd
Deliberative Polls can also reveal surprising conclusions. In Italy, there was a Deliberative Poll about reform of the medical system. For many years, the region that surrounds Rome has had many more hospital beds and hospital wings than doctors to support them. There had been strong, entrenched public resistance to closing hospital wings based on the visceral sense that people had that they wanted to ensure there would be a hospital bed available to them. When participated in the Deliberative Poll however they realized that their empirical assumption was likely mistaken. The number of hospital beds was less relevant to their core objective of having medical services available to them if and when they needed them than whether there was a medical bed with a doctor to treat them.

The Deliberative Poll revealed a significant opinion change of individuals who were willing to support a shift in resources from the maintenance of empty wings to providing more doctors by closing down those facilities that were deserted. Corporations often have the challenge that employees are aware of problems, but are not necessarily well enough informed about the potential solutions to these problems that they can make a thoughtful decision or provide their informed consent. The Deliberative Corporation process lets them do this by asking questions about empirical assumptions, facts and opinions in a coherent framework of analysis that allows implications to be drawn from the results that can create a legitimate basis for decision-making.

1. Convene executives and management to identify the initial issue. For example, a company might want to investigate how best to attain sustainability targets without compromising product quality and profitability.

2. Create an advisory committee. In our example, this might include those internal experts who are responsible for the company meeting sustainability targets, in addition to those who know what programs have been tried historically and what is upcoming. It would also include representatives from product, manufacturing and operations, and possibly accounting and Corporate Social Responsibility functions. The committee would also include experts from local Universities on energy efficiency programs, supply chain management, sustainable materials.

3. Create a briefing document with executives and management to discuss relevant issues. The briefing materials contain 20 potential approaches for how to cost-effectively achieve sustainability objectives. The briefing materials present each option, the arguments for and against each option, and the assumptions relevant to each option, and any factual information that is uncontroversial and necessary to the dicussion.

4. Identify the entire population for which the issue is relevant. In the case above, this would include everyone at the company, and might include those along the supply chain depending on the scope.

5. Scientifically select a random sample that is representative of the entire population. The human resources department would work in conjunction with Reframe It & CDD personnel to select a random sample among the entire population. The random sample must be a microcosm of the entire population, and reflect its demographic components.

6. Administer the questionnaire to the random sample. The questionnaire measures three things: the degree of support, the degree to which people accurately understand the facts involved, and their feedback on what would be the result if certain policies were followed. The questionnaire is sent via email (or other means) to the random sample and to the control group, with instructions to complete it at least one week before the Deliberative Poll.

7. Conduct training for in-person and online moderators. The day before the Deliberative Poll, a class convenes to train the moderators, first giving instruction and then allowing for practice moderating sessions.

8. Convene the random sample for a Deliberative Poll with moderated discussions interspersed with experts in plenary sessions available to answer questions developed in the small group discussions. After completing the questionnaire, the random sample group is invited to attend the in-person Deliberative Poll. Their participation is incentivized, and encouraged by the highest level company champions of the project. The event is held in a pleasant venue, with refreshments available, and is often filmed for internal communications efforts and for additional analysis.

9. Train the random sample on the Reframe It online technology in order to continue the discussion for the entire population, with ratings and comments of the now-educated random sample providing a safeguard against manipulation by highly mobilized marginal groups. At the end of the in-person event, a demo encourages the participants to add their takeaways in the online comments, and to rate each others' comments.

10. Post the briefing documents online and invite the entire population (note: additional documents may be posted, for example video clips of the Deliberative Poll event should they be relevant.)

11. Have experts available to answer questions that arise online and moderators available to moderate comments based on criteria selected by the company leadership

12. Evaluate the results of the Deliberative Poll to identify learning as well as changes in underlying assumptions. Evaluate and code transcripts of the Deliberative Poll’s small group discussions to suggest ways of reframing the issues for the final DP. The point of all this deliberation is to indentify those risks that had been hidden and what approaches to these problems might mitigate or overcome these risks, whether that means revisions to existing proposed solutions or entirely new approaches.

13. Reconvene the briefing committee to establish changes to the briefing document and policy options. This includes reality-checking new proposals and eliminating proposals whose support has crumbled after the Deliberative Poll microcosm had evaluated them. They then reconfigure the questionnaire: in addition to testing new proposals and revised policy options, the questionnaire asks questions about empirical assumptions that were revealed to be important in the course of the analysis of the first Deliberative Poll and online deliberation.

14. Convene a second Deliberative Poll, using the revised policy options, a second (new) random sample, the new questionnaire, and new briefing documents; convene the event, administer a post-event questionnaire and analyze the changes.

15. The results of the Deliberative Corporation process will indicate four things: the change in the support for the policy options, the degree of change, the factual learning that occured during the process, and the shifts in the assumptions people have about what the results of any given policy option would be. For example, if two original policy options were to install solar panels on the roof of the building or to "green" the building by conforming to high Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ("LEED") standards, originally the solar panels might have seemed a simple and unobtrusive solution. However after discussing all the details -- for example the particular location of the company buildings -- as well as the reality of the long term cost savings, the building improvement might emerge as the more supported option. The results could show that the empirical assumptions people had about the hassle of implementing these change to their physical infrastructure were overly fearful compared to the reality revealed by discussion. Additionally, knowledge gains about the cost-effectiveness of such an approach could be demonstrated across the population.

16. Create a report of the process for executives and management to use as an identification of stable and secure support for decision-making.

Now can we just get our Congress to use something like this to get off their ideological high horses and reach meaningful resolution around issues such as our deficit / debt!? I guess one can always dream.... :-)

This technology is what we call a "signal" here at the Institute for the Future. Evidence in the present day of a technology that will become mainstream over the coming years, due to the foresight and willingness to take risks by its creators. I look forward to seeing this work develop and shape the way the institutions make decisions in the future!

Given the events in Washington D.C. and Wall Street these past few years, more and more people are recognizing that traditional forms of "representation" (whether in govt, corporations, or other large institutions) are at times not only inefficient, but can actually have destructive consequences for the interests they supposedly represent -- and as a result damage our broader society.

However, deliberative technology has the potential to bring informed thought and representational discipline back into the process and inject merit-based decision making that actually serves the interests of the broader based stakeholders in these organizations.

The sooner we bring these types of technologies into the mainstream, the better off we all will be.

As a global society we are still at the beginning of understanding how to come together, respect and understand differences, and leverage knowledge and insights for the greater good. We need more than the wisdom of the crowds. We need to know how to concurrently enable critical thinking and broad participation. Leading corporate management systems are evolving from hierarchical structures toward dynamically networked organizations. Leaders and managers need tools and processes that invite deliberate consideration while building shared vision. The deliberative corporation and reframeit tools accomplish much of this. The next frontier is to create a sense of presence among the participants - the feeling of being there, the empowerment of recognition, the connected feeling when another person "gets" what you have to say.

For too long we've been managing to stamp out discourse and consumerize our Government. Politicians seek money to feed into TV ads... you know the cycle and whom it benefits.

We're at the start of a slow process of reconnection, of taking back agency for our lives and communities. A huge piece of this is learning to make critical decisions together, and Deliberative Polling offers a great solution to that.

With this and other processes that enhance collective sensemaking, we should have an involved citizenry back from this consumer culture soon.

The body of individual decision theory demonstrates that sometimes analytical desision proesses and evaluation often render counter-intuitive yet superior outcomes. A process of individual analysis often reveals a number of previously unconsidered options. However, in most cases we often jump to the first conclusion. Now pose a decision, any decision in front of a group of people and the opportunities for informed group decision reduces markedly. The Deliberative Polling mechanism offers one of the greatest advances in decision engineering en mass with global implications for responsible and informed group decision making and deliberation. Much of the 21st century will challenge our global civilization like never before. The outdated political, economic and environmental systems that we currently engage were tools of the industrial age, with effectiveness diminishing towards the end of the 20th century. Deliberative Polling presents a well thought out and implemented mechanism for clear stakeholder understanding leading to decisions that yield results on a greater and more urgent scale than previously achieved.

Advancements in technology have far outpaced the evolution of government for some time now. This problem is most apparent today in cases where democracy is threatened by small, vocal groups that can hold large populations hostage during the decision or law making process. Much of this problem lies at the feet of a majority that remains silent and sidelined today due to inaccessible and/or inefficient communication tools. The Deliberative Corporation and Reframe It present an opportunity to solve this problem with an innovative process and technology that can be easily and intuitively applied to advance citizen participation and improve collective intelligence and policy making. Yes, this model applies to multiple audiences (employees, group members, congregants, etc.), but to me its greatest use may be in empowering citizens.

The Deliberative Poll hack is a brilliant innovation in the process of group decision making. Amazingly, it appears to work equally well in both authoritarian and anarchic communities -- which describe most corporations!

The two areas that appear most challenging when applying this in a corporate environment are a) developing broad-based briefing materials, and b) synthesizing the results to produce optimal policy recommendations. I would like to see more "Best Practice Guidelines" for how to achieve those goals in a commercial setting, as the private sector doesn't have as much experience in these skills as the public sector does.

Thanks so much for this comment. You are absolutely right about the two most difficulty challenges in a corporate environment. I think success in such an environment depends on a) management buy-in to consultation with a relevant public (employees or customers or the public, for whatever the reason) on the given topic b) their commitment to actually listening to the results and then implementing some of them c) having a credible and balanced advisory group who can vet the materials for balance and accuracy and pass on the balance of the expert panels. If those three conditions are present then there is a good chance of success. A key element is that because the DP requires before and after data, the questions need to be agreed to before hand. But the moderated online consulation process opens up the agenda, allowing it to be expanded so that everyone can have a say. If the results are vetted again with the advisory group and then announced publicly within the company, then there will be a strong expectation that they get implemented. The ability to put the process and its results online is an engine for creating transparency and an expectation for follow through.

I think the message is incredibly relevant as we reap the results of ill-conceived 'insecure' deliberations about deficit (all of which start with "The American people are telling us", as if) -- the approach to a 'secure' conclusion not hijacked by extremists gaming the system is so incredibly timely. I would like to see more deets on the protocols used to secure this process -- what I see are random sampling and balanced materials as they key -- did I get that right? Is there special sauce to these two aspects? Are there others involved in 'securing' the discussion? Boy do we need security in our public discourse these days. On a meta-level, while so many of us are walking around talking about 'gamification' these days, this is a fascinating opportunity to consider whether anti-gamification (Post-gamification?) is a more worthy commitment. Bottom line, go for the win!

Dear Mark: thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. I think the "special sauce" as you put it includes not only the random sampling and the (balanced materials (vetted by a balanced advisory group) but also some other elements. For the Deliberative Poll, it also includes the moderated small group discussions, the balanced panels of experts who respond to questions from the small groups and the fact that the opinions are gathered before and after in confidential questionnaires (to protect from social pressure and bandwagon effects). In addition, the fact that the online commentary is moderated (to prevent spam) and rated by the informed random sample (to prevent capture from mobilization). All these elements work together to give informed and representative views on hard choices. Many thanks, Jim Fishkin

I think you should learn about the Issue Based Information System, IBIS, and its modern textbook, "Dialogue Mapping" by Jeff Conklin. See also his short YouTube video about recording a conversation. This is the best technology I know of for representing multiple viewpoints without making mush.

Everything starts with questions. Questions are more important than answers. The prime concern should be to develop great questions. Let contributors propose alternative questions. No answer/claim/position is allowed except in answer to some specific question. Naturally contributors may propose alternative answers. Similarly answers may have multiple arguments both pro and con. It is amazing how much clarity is provided by knowing the question to which this is the answer.

Of course any part of any item may give rise to new questions about it. And both footnotes and links to supportive material may also be attached to any part of any item. Extensions to facilitate polling/voting on any item might be great, but I know of no examples. I think that it is valuable not to show the authorship of the items.

Such a framework may be valuable for research issues. Aspects of Toyota's A3 Process, Managing to Learn might enhance this approach. See John Shook's book on the topic. W. Edwards Deming's management philosophy has been shown to be quite powerful in several dimensions.

Software to assist in maintaining, growing, and revising dialogue maps could be helpful.

I agree with Richard K. I went to a town planning meeting in Mountain View to weigh in on the 20 year plan. It was a nice assembly. The intention was to get input from the community. And on the surface everything looked on the up and up. But the whole framing of the event and the questions posed assumed continued growth and development in the normal manner. Creating more public and green space was not within the frame so did not get the air time it deserved. That said, this process seems broadly applicable and I give two thumbs up.

Completely agree with the comments from Richard and especially my friend Neal about the importance of the framing of the event: the questions that are asked are all-important. They can either reinforce existing assumptions, or create the discursive space to examine and perhaps overturn them.

But that's part of what I think is smart about the Deliberative Corporation process. As I understand it, the online segment of the process, wedged in between the two deliberative polls, offers anyone in the community the opportunity to pose new questions and thereby reframe the debate.

I like the shape and dimension of this approach.
1. Lately I have been using "qualify, append, or approve" as a way to develop toward consensus. I treat it like something of a modified "yes, and" approach. This helps people not only be heard, but also to dig into building upon what is being shared.
2. Successful implementation of this, I am sure, also has to do with the soft skills of just about everyone involved. Do you include criteria or guidelines for those soft people skills when offering implementations of the tool?
So exciting to see this. I was just looking at a blog post about wicked messes where someone was bemoaning the lack of consensus processes to navigate them and underneath that, people's inability to recognize a wicked problem. Thank you! And best to you!

1. You raise a great point! The Deliberative Corporation is not actually seeking consensus. This is based on Cass Sunstein's research, which identified the problems that come up when insisting that a group reaches consensus in his analysis of juries. His research indicates that when people are forced into consensus the results do not reflect their true degree of support. Instead, we strive to produce conversations where all voices feel represented and heard. When people feel listened to, they can accept decisions that don't necessarily go in their favor because they have trust in the quality of the process that led to those decisions. Instead, the Deliberative Corporation process measures what people think without putting them under pressure by using a confidential questionnaire.2. The process always includes training in the method of moderation, or providing moderators depending on the situation. In the case of many corporations, there are already people who have interest and some skill in moderation -- which means that we need to "untrain" forging towards consensus, and strengthen skills for facilitated discussion. It is a bit of a "bonus" to leave the company with individuals who have some degree of further expertise in this important skill. Training is provided for other soft skills as needed.

The briefing materials structure the conversations around concrete policy options. At this point it is a matter of discussing on a timeline the amount of material that needs to be covered throughout the in-person event; one of the advantages of the online component of the deliberation is allowing those at the in-person event to seed the discussion online. At this point, the algorithm in Reframe It software rates comments and displays them based on the ratings of the random sample who participated in the Deliberative Poll, ensuring the conversation stays on track to large degree. Of course the online discussion is also moderated when desired.

Very useful comment. In theory one could deliberate forever. However, this is a practical process where the Deliberative Poll is scheduled for a set time of one, two or three days. The online commentary is for a stated period as well, in order to refine the proposals for the Deliberative Poll. People know what the schedule is and they are urged to submit their comments within the period so that they can be taken into account in framing the options. The results of the final Deliberative Poll are meant to guide decisions by management in the case of the Deliberative Corporation.

Beautifully thorough work on an aspect of online life that is only increasing in relevance.

Recent lessons suggest that systems of group-to-mass participation that can't keep up with events (government,) are too automated (stock markets) or too autocratic either fail or are circumvented by people demanding progress.

Organizations of all sizes that understand the need to engage their constituencies along with the need to stay ahead will turn to new solutions to support their needs. Facebook and Twitter point the way but do not provide enough of a deliberative framework to support concrete results.

Really agree with Bobby's comments on the importance of representation over consensus. In my experience people who believe they have made an important contribution to achieving a worthwhile goal care less about consensus and more about the quality of the conclusion. Clear goals and a strong sense of representation bring out people's rational qualities in other words.

The trick I think will be to distill this research into something fluid and accessible - something that can be used without having to understand the underlying theory.

Segwaying on Jerry's 'enhance collective sensemaking': what would make this great idea even better is a memetic analysis of the topic of the discussion before the original poll questions are written. We have seen many cases when the memes of the survey question was out of synch with the local memeset - be it a gov or a company environment - and the answer did not - and could not! - make sense. Understanding the memetic dimensions of the problem could also help in the deliberative phase. These dimensions will reveal those elements that the community will resonate with allowing you to focus on the most important aspects.

This process is an opportunity to reboot democracy, and expand the concept from government to businesses. There are already successful examples of doing this, the book "Maverick" from Ricardo Semler is an example of such a successful experiments. Kudos to the Reframeit team for productizing the deliberative process so that it can spread as much as possible.

Amazing concepts. And it's great to see how the theory is not just theory, and that there are pragmatic ways to use these processes in order to bring more democracy and a better decision process in different fields.

I love this concept. I love that is is looking to out-manouevre those who game our democratic systems, and deliver on the promise of an informed and represented public both in politics and business. I think what I love most is how evidently in love the creators of this process are with the principles of democracy and an engaged public. Bravo.

This looks like a good way to address unintentional and intentional bias in decision-making. The nature of difficult decisions seem to necessarily involve both advocacy and open-minded thinking, so it’s very encouraging to see examples of progress in areas of natural conflict.

I wish this process had been around when I worked in the US public radio system. As it was, NPR engaged an excellent and ambitious process called "New Realities" to survey member station staff to help guide a new collective strategy reflective of the changing media landscape. The one regret I always had was that the public was not brought in to bear on how the public radio system should evolve.

In my mind, there has always been a practical response to this regret; the public is largely uninformed about the many details inherent to how public radio really works -- from production, to distribution and, ultimately, to funding. Aside from the lead time that would be needed to educate an engaged public on public radio in its totality, there wasn't an established process to frame the issues, provide context and then organize the results into any actionable response.

Until now.

This is an exciting evolution in democracy -- not just because it provides a solid and credible framework for public deliberation. It is a practical and humanistic process that encourages the best aspects of our humanity; collaboration, thought and, ultimately, one would hope, understanding.

One of the laments of scholars of politics is that the American public (as portrayed in surveys) is uninterested and not knowledgeable about politics. However, a robust finding is that deliberation can improve political decision making and make people feel more efficacious.

Applying the concept of deliberative polling to management settings is a brilliant and natural extension. Deliberation has enormous potential to improve profitability while at the same time forwarding corporate social responsibility and sustainability.

I really like this technologically innovative and philosophically democratic process. It should be wildly known internationally, in particular, among Japanese policy makers, since I always feel that even very able politicians sometimes fail in incorporating regular people's great ideas into their policies. Absolutely fascinating concept!

This is a critical tool for any organization who wants to be a game-changer and innovate. This is the kind of thinking that will help push organizations into realizing their real potential on a continuous basis.

This is extremely useful material and a timely approach to current business practices. Social media is literally flooding top management with input -- and input by definition is neither information or data, it is just stuff. One of the biggest problems business decision makers who fully understand the ramifications of their decisions have is learning to separate overwhelming noise from critical feedback. This is not trivial, because a decision maker can not afford to stop listening, but must know when surges of conflicting messages are less useful than they appear. It is a very fine line, to separate useful comment from distraction. The Deliberative Process as methodology has the potential to help executives better digest and interpret that which is useful while effectively deflecting noise. That is no small trick, since time is precious, but critical listening is even more precious.

The Deliberative Corporation ("DC") presents a highly useful methodology for bringing the views of subject matter experts together withthe experiences, practical wisdom and emotional intelligence of the stakeholder population that will either make an important decision, or have to live with the impacts and consequences of that decision. As an attorney who litigates high stakes cases for corporate clients that must make decisions not only about individual cases, but also policy decisions that must balance long range corporate opportunity with risk, I have found Professor Fishkin's book "When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation to be invaluable. Robert Fishkin's Reframe It software adds a dimension of power and access to Deliberative Polling.

People engaged in a partIcipatory process of decision making in the city develop a sense of ownership and commitment which is crucial for an active and responsible citizenship. When you add conditions of good information and accurate representation to the partIcipatory process, the results tend to be yet better. That's the reason why I do believe Deliberative Corporarion process is an important social technology to help organizations be more responsive to the challenges of XXI century democratIc societies.

The Deliberative Corporation is an enlightened and democratic approach to problem solving in the 21st century. Social media and Social technology are often decried for creating harm and waste, but it is inventions and intelligence like the DC that advance our society through education, participation and fairness. This is what social intelligence and action should look like. DC is a socially just and socially relevant winner.

What a necessary burst of fresh, good sense that The Deliberative Corporation injects into the polling process for intelligent, democratic decision-making. With still a good many places in the world--governments and corporations and more--hindered by access to information issues and political pressures that in turn stymie decision-making, DC establishes a baseline expectation of fair engagement of all stakeholders. I also appreciate how the social technology also appropriately mirrors the democratic nature of the DC process; the digital engagement experience of commenting on relevant texts within the DC process effectively closes the distance between the issue at hand and the participant, truly engaging him or her on a decision and set of texts that would otherwise typically be far removed--often behind the glass of a television screen, or behind the closed doors of a boardroom.

One question that comes to mind is how you have factored in the issue of anonymity in this process--especially as it affects a participant in a traditional focus group (when his or her identity is hidden from the public) and on online forums (when users often have the freedom to either adopt aliases or use their true identities). Have you considered how this might affect the frankness of comments if employees or citizens use their real identities and might fear later retribution from employers or their government?

So often, competing constituencies are either placated or controlled or silenced as a means to the end of policy creation, but DC appears to offer a process toward policy that reconstitutes and unifies those constituencies through contextualizing information. Reframe It seems to secure individuality of voice and equality of access--two of the best elements of this technology and of democracy as well. That DC is flexible enough to work with small or large groups, in companies and across countries and differing cultures means to me that the inventors have hit on something global that has the potential to effectively deliver on the promise of democratic process. How exciting is that?!

To me, this is both incredibly practical and necessary. To have experts providing the know-how coupled with learning "what the people would think if they were thinking" are what I wish all organizations, public and private would employ. I especially like the idea of online commentary so that really everyone can contribute (and maybe help add anonymity?).

This venture by The Deliberative Corporation with an assist from Reframe It brings substance and meaning to the United Nations’ recent declaration of the Internet as a basic human right. So often technology gets ahead of itself and human beings who might not have access to elite political spaces. Quite to the contrary, the Deliberative Corporation keeps human beings at the center of a process that harnesses the power of deliberation and technology in a political sphere mindful of diversity, difference and the human urge for cooperation. Delightful to me are phrases in the summary like, “empowers an entire population,” “all members of the relevant population,” “deeply divided cultures,” and “the ability for the entire population to participate in the discussion.” The cutting edge in tandem with the classical is fascinating and, most importantly, posits plausible models for social change in all kinds of groups and organizations.

Annie Hung raises an important issue about anonymity. Note that the face to face portions of the deliberation are obviously not anonymous and work very well in a moderated setting. In the online phase, participants feel similarly free to speak frankly about the issue, because the issue has been posed by management as an open question for which they are soliciting comments on how to improve the proposals that will be submitted to the Deliberative Poll. In order for the process to work, management must apply it to an issue which it is actually interested in listening to employees about. Say it is about employee retention issues. Management can only learn what might be useful to improve employee retention if it legitimizes a frank and substantive discussion.

The more Deliberative Polls that happen around the world, the more it becomes obvious that this process is far and away the most powerful and practical antidote for the dire state of national political decision making and the slough of despondent cynicism that we've fallen into regarding politics.
I hadn't thought about the application of DPs to corporate decision making but this is a powerful idea. It cannot help but have a positive impact on a corporation and in turn the wider society. Well done.

Among the excellent set of finalists, the two with which I'm most familiar – and admire greatly – are the Deliberative Corporation and MIT's Deliberatorium.

Both are grounded in a systematic form of deep and wide listening, informed structured dialogue, mutual understanding, and pragmatic negotiation geared towards effective action: and both point towards a more open, agile, rigorous and transparent system of civic and corporate governance.

Both seek to build on social media’s strength as a serendipity catalyst by giving participants the means to interact mindfully, to surface difficult questions, to learn collaboratively, creatively and cumulatively from each other, and to take responsibility and hold each other accountable for the decisions arising from their deliberations.

The deliberative work that both entail is demanding and inspiring – as the best work should be – and in an age of eddying noise and complexity, of financial and political uncertainty, and of intense pressure on resources, this work has never been more important.

The Deliberative Corporation process shows a way to implement an important missing element from 21st century polling. It fits well with the Social Network media and in my opinion, the time has come for widespread deliberative polling. It should be used in many frameworks - political, social and corporate.

Large organizations face difficult decisions on a regular basis that impact all of their stakeholders, and this level of complexity is rising. I believe that engaging stakeholders in decisions that impact them increases their productive engagement with that organization, which in an era when only 51% of US employees are interested in their work (a 19% drop since 1987), has to be a positive development for all concerned. The Deliberative Corporation seems to me to be a very positive development in the practice of management.

When Churchill quoted “democ­racy is the worst form of gov­ern­ment, except for all the oth­ers” - he might have welcomed the concept of deliberative corporation.

Crowd-sourcing and open forums can be overrun with highly mobilized special interests, and today's social media will see an amplification of this effect. Perhaps it's time - we try out a new, and well informed concept of decision making.

One of the flaws of corporate management is how key decisions are made unilaterally or are the result of having been besieged by voices that rise above the rest because amplitude not aptitude.

Deliberative polling in the corporate environment is a positive step in eliminating blowhards from the decision-making process and giving voice back to the people who's daily work can better influence key decisions.

The powerful online group annotation tools that promote sharing and collaboration with fellow staff paired with the deliberative polling process is exactly how technology and process should coalesce and is exactly how management can -- and will -- be reinvented in the not to distant future.

I would love this to already exist and hope The Deliberative Corporation wins this competition!

This hack enables a sustainable decision making process that leaders can leverage for rapid organizational change. I dreamed of this in 2001 to support business leaders to adopt more socially responsible and ecologically sustainable practices. How can we lead the kinds of massive shifts like we are facing in our lifetimes - weather brought on by economic or natural storms or our collective human impact - without knowing what our educated stakeholders would think about current matters at hand?

The hack's solution gives insight that can drive communications that lead to better engagement with and between employees. Multiple channels of constructive feedback loops can be created through The Deliverative Corporation that can improve decision making and as a result policies in a corporation. Awesome!

The hack combines 2 things well: 1. deliberative polling provides an in depth approach to getting at how people think in an organization while 2. the online commenting leverages the massive wave of online social interaction that is changing the way we all live today.

Thanks for the effort to refine and share this with the world - hope it wins (and either way that it

Should be noted that this is better than proxy or a voting booth to measure the values of the democracy. It is just enough work to get to the polls or respond to proxy, and the chances are so small of affecting income, that is strictly irrational to vote. Only the ideologs and retirees looking for entertainment bother. And you can go into a voting booth knowing nothing about down slate judges and still get equal impact as someone who knows. We get emotional know- nothings, by the nature of the process, from votes and proxies. The Debilerative poll both gives information enough to make the vote worth something and also gives the process a chance at representing the true deep fundamental values of hte Democracy.

The Deliberative Polling was introduced into Longbiao Company to improve management system in Wenling city, Zhejiang Province, China on 30 June 2006. It was great success. The boss of the company was pleased to see how ordinary workers participate in the decision-making process and contribute to creating a new deliberative management system. The managers of the Longbiao implemented the recommendation made by the workers.

Process has always been as important to me as the end result, and the Deliberative Corporation establishes a process and framework for making informed decisions that can then be implemented more effectively and efficiently with greater stakeholder buy-in. I'm eager to see what happens next with the thoughtful work that the Fishkins have done.

Imagine broad swaths of informed stakeholders who actually understand what is at stake...well, you not only have imagined it, you've created the methodology and means to make it happen...across organizations, regions, countries. A critically needed corrective to today's norm of bumper sticker-"educated" populations.

Excellent idea and like the design too but just wondering about the scalability of this approach to say large populations. In a controlled set for example within large companies this may work but how does the approach propose to control the maintenance costs (moderation, support) associated with this exercise when we have say a 10000 interested people. Is it possible to automate the moderation without losing the effectiveness.

Also when there is a vocal deliberation in the council, one can hear the opinions of what others are saying. This not only avoids repitition but also many times helps in shaping opinions. With an online system its possible that the comment notes get ignored probably due to volumes? For example the comments below in this hack itself run upto 3 pages, but I only managed to read the first page. So its possible I am just repeating something what is already written and commented upon. This will increase the work for moderators, unless they are proactively voting comments up / down.

Nevertheless this is a good start and fantastic idea. Perhaps it would be nice to self-validate this hack by putting it for deliberation on the reframe it site!

Very interesting and lots of potential for developing cross-segmentation understanding. I am particularly interested in how it could be applied in educational environments at the micro (classroom) and macro (district/state) level. Well done.

Provides a dynamic approach increasing the opportunity to dig more deeply into views,feelings and true source of interest and concern. Most people initially express a viewpoint,concern or complaint that they believe at a given moment--but which often is not reflective of the actual source of their point of view.Deliberative Polling is not limited to a static "photographic" point of view. Deliberative Polling engages a process which allows for reflection and an opportunity to get at the underlying source of an initial expression of thought or opinion, i.e. decoding a first viewpoint to expose a deeper understanding and derive more penetrating information, thereby making the poll more effective and useful.

Well this will help decision making that will benefit the company, business or organization. Informed opinions will play a big part here, right decision can make a company or business more successful and more stronger.